A Meeting-related Information Exchange Facility

within a computer conferencing environment

- / -

Report prepared in response to a request from an Ad Hoc Meeting on Conference
Information Systems held on the initiative of the Committee for Information on
Science and Technology (CIDST) of the Commission of the European Communities.
(Luxembourg, September 1977). Version
française

Introduction

Work on this report was initiated in response to a request from an d Hoc
Meeting on Conference Information Systems (Luxembourg, September 1977) held
on the initiative of the Committee for Information and documentation on Science
and Technology (CIDST) of the Commission of the European Communities. The
purpose of the report is to outline the context within which conference
information could be maintained and made accessible on-line via the European
On-line Information Network (euronet), and to consider: (a) the organizational
questions of ensuring appropriate collaboration amongst existing suppliers
of such information, (b) the problems of transition to the new system and
(c) the nature of a suitable pilot project. The whole question of conference
information services had been reviewed at an earlier meeting (York, June 1576)
sponsored by the Commission (K.P. Barr (Ed) Report of the Workshop on Information
on Conferences. (York, British Library Lending Division, 1976).). On the
basis of the 1976 and 1977 meetings, a report has also been prepared on the
conference information system itself (L.J. Anthony. Main parameters of a
system for handling conference information. (London, Aslib, 1977).), so
that this question will not be considered in detail here.

Preliminary considerations

It is appropriate to note the following points :

1 . There is little point in undertaking the
relatively costly exercise of putting onto an on-line system information which is
already available at reasonable cost via conventional services,
unless there are a significant number of additional benefits to
the users and suppliers of the information.

2. Organizations and individuals responsible for meetings
are not
universally enthusiastic about ensuring wide dissemination of
information about their event. Such
publicity can lead to much
unnecessary and time-consuming,
correspondence for the organizer
who frequently has a perfectly adequate means of informing those
who may wish to attend the meeting. For
any new service to be
acceptable, rather than to generate increased resistance, it should
in some way be of additional benefit to the organizer.

3.In attempting to increase
coverage and quality (including timeliness) of conference information, a system dependent on extracting
information from unenthusiastic organizations responsible for
meetings or from unmotivated secondary sources is bound to become
increasingly costly and impractical in proportion to the percentage
of complete coverage desired. This cost
decreases to the extent
that information in volunteered because the originators derive some
direct benefit from participation in the service.

4.There are already a
considerable number of general and special
services supplying conference information ; whether world-wide,
by region, by sector, etc. Some of
these are funded purely for prestige purposes, others to provide a focal service for
a loosely organized constituency, others as a source of revenue or for other
reasons. A new
service must face the reality of these often
competing interests. It mould have to
offer features which mould
make it attractive and valuable to them.
And whatever is done,
parallel services mill continue to exist for a variety of reasons.
Some of them may mill be made available on-line.

5.It would
be extremely short-sighted to design a system for today's
needs and problems. By the time it is
implemented, it mould
already be out of data and inadequate.
Despite the difficulty, it
is important to attempt to respond to the needs of the period
1980-1990 particularly since EURONET itself is being set up with
that period in viem.

Context

In presenting EURONET in 1976, the Commission of the European Community estimated
that by 1980 there mould be a user demand in the Community for 2 million on-line
data bank queries per year, doubling to 4 million per year by 1985. Over
400 data bases already exist in Europe. (See also Table 1: International
organization information systems.) These figures are mentioned to emphasize
that a new communication environment is being created a revolution
corresponding in many ways to the widespread introduction of the telephone.
The price of access to this environment is the computer terminal, and the
cost of terminals is dropping rapidly (probably to the price of a colour TV
set by 1980). The best way to appreciate our limited ability to understand
how rapidly they will become standard office equipment is to consider the
introduction of the (pocket) electronic calculator. In 1973 these were considered
luxury items of little future relevance to ordinary office operations. In
1977 they are in the hands of anyone who needs one.

Table 1 Categorization of international information
systems and programmes.

AGRIS international Information System for Agricultural Sciences
and Technology (FAO)

The consequence of this new environment will be a great increse in the number
of terminals, the variety of users, thevariety of services offered, and the
degree of inter-linkage between services and between types of user.

Faced with this situation, it is vital that some thought be given to the
meaning of "conference information". There is a danger that limiting
attention to the current meaning of the term may be as mistaken as the classic
policy errors of thinking "railways" instead of "transportation",
"typewriters" instead of "information processing", or
"books" instead of"documents" (as including film, microfiche,
and magnetic tape), or "information storage".

Conventionally a permanent "organization" gives rise to some kind
of "meeting" of people whose activities together are embodied in
a publication generally called the "proceedings". The emerging
reality associated with each of these terms can however be considered as follows
:

1. Oraganization: It is generally assumed that an organization :

a) is permanent, when in fact there are an increasing number of
ad hoc committees and organizations formed for projects of limited duration
b)is formally structured, when in fact there is an increasing tendency
to form loose networks of individuals or institutes with a rotating centre
of authority or none at all
c) is legally registered, when many
active bodies do not exist as legal entities.
d) has elected or appointed officers, when special functions may
be loosely associated with a number of people
e) has activities, when some bodies may be completely dorment between key events (e.g. national elections)

2.-Meeting: It is generally assumed that a meeting :

a) is of short duration, when some meetings now continue for months
or years
b) occurs at a particular location, when meetings now travel from
city to city, or are held on cruise ships. Some are non-territorial in that
they are held by telephone (the "conference" call), by radio, or
by television. In the future many will be held via computer (The computer"conference")
c) is an isolated event, when meetings are increasingly woven
into a web of other meetings/exhibitions/fairs/touristic events, etc. These
may be at the same location or elsewhere (although linked by time constraints).
d) involves a physical assembly of people,when
(as noted in a previous point) it is no longer necessary to bring people together
for a meeting to take place and this may not even to desirable.(*)
e) is held in terms of an agenda (usually decided in advance), when
there is an increasing tendency to define and redefine the points under discussion
as part of the interaction process ; and when, from the participants point
of view, many of the most valuable exchanges of the meeting take place outside
the framework of the agenda-governed formal processes.
f ) has well -defined roles for speakers
and audience, when in fact the role of speaker is increasingly played
down in favour of interaction between participants unmoderated by any formal
structure. Such interactions may be depersonalized to the point of being
"confrontations" between data sets or personalized in the manner
of the encounter session or "be-in".
g ) can only permit one "speaker" at time before a passive audience,
when computer conferencing in fact allows all participants to interact simultaneously
with one or more other participants.(For a review of "computer
conferencing", see: Transnational Associations, 29, 1977, 10,
special issue.) There is therefore not a linear sequence of contributions
but a network of comments largely independent of time.

3.-Proceedings: It is generally assumed that conference proceedings
:

a) consist of paper documents, when increasingly proceedings may
be only available as tape or videotape recordings, or on microfilm on fiche.
b) are prepared by capturing and processing data in parallel with or subsequent
to the meeting process, when such meeting techniques as computer conferencing
occur via a continually updated set of exchanges typed directly in a machine-recorded
form, possibly with automatic indexing and SDI to other potentially interested
participants.(S.Korris and C.Moroan. Human responses to sulphur pollutants;
proceedings of a computer-base conference. Brookhaven National Laboratory,
1974)
c) are valuable even if they take months or years to publish and distribute,
when in many cases the proceedings are only of value, if at all during or
shorthly after the meeting because of the volatility of the matter under discussion.

The interaction of these increasingly broadly defined concepts creates special
problem of data capture, if the conference information is to of any use.
Clearly if, in a particular case, the participants' concept of the organization/meeting/proceedings
complex da-emphasizes the characteristics which give it permanence, tangibility
and stability, then obtaining conference information in the conventional manner
becomes as difficult and futile as attempting to register (future)"conference
calls"and record their content for posterity an activity which would
be viewed by the participants with a fair degree of amusement, if not hostility.

A response tothis assessment is to narrow the
definition of the organization /meeting /proceedings complex to exclude any which
are not
sufficiently permanent and stable. But
if the information technology
increasingly encourages and supports
events which do not have this
permanence, many significant events will go unrecorded. But perhaps
more important,the new environment will demand new services to facilitate the activities of those who participate in such "non-stable"
events thus further narrowing the
relevance of a conference information service narrowly defined. In
fact a more broadly defined service could subsequently incorporate most of the conference information
facilities, thus rendering a narrowly defined service obsolete or of
minor significance.

The question therefore raised is what might be the nature of the services
required, by what range of users, and how does this mesh with the special concern for conference information ?
For only by deciding what
kind of service makes a critical number of users feel "at home" in the
new environment, is it possible to see how the provision of such services can be associated with the desirability of improved quality and
coverage of conference information.

It is important to recognize that a conference of any kindis not an isolated
event (convenient for information processing) but an integral part of the
process whereby individuals, groups, institutions, concepts, problems and
values are in continuing interaction. Conferences are merely concentrations
of this process, but it is the process which gives them their significance
and provides the continuity between them. In a special sense, conference information
services are "parasites" on the process. Improving their function
does not necessarily facilitate the process. It may merely increase the amount
of miscommunication. But the more that is done to facilitate the self-defined
task of the interactants in the process (rather than simply profit by it),
the the desired conferenceinformation mill volunteer . (For further discussion
of these points, see: Anthony Judge. International organizations :
diversity, borderline cases, functional substitutes and possible alternatives.
In: Paul Taylor and A J R Groom (Eds) International Organisation ; a conceptual
approach. Frances Pinter, 377, also pp. 381-483.)

Interactants and their interactions

The term interactants includes both "users" who use conference
information services for their own purposes and those mho initiate or actively participate in conferences. The range of interactants has been somewhat
arbitraily split into four main groups: conference initiators, participants,
conference services, and information services (whether pre-or post-conference).
It is important to note that a conference satisfactory to organisers and participants
can be held without the benefit of the third or fourth groups, since their
services can be provided by the initiators or their network of contacts.
And even a large conference can be held without the benefit of the fourth
group. Appropriate interactions with in and between all the groups is naturally
desirable in the interests of all parties.

1.Conference initiators: These include groups, individuals, organizations, agencies, foundations. They could make use of it :

to exchange messages to see whether there is collective agreement as
to the utility of a meeting.

to locate possible sponsors of a meeting for which funds are available.

to determine when and where to schedule a meeting, in terms of the
constraints of potential collaborators and their need to participate in
related (conflicting) meetings.

to announce a meeting to: potential collaborating bodies or sponsors,
potential participants and the media.

to call for papers or initiate pre-conference collaborative projects

to locate travel and other conference facilities (as past of the process of choosing/negotiating a date and location)

to seek financial support for the meeting

to maintain contact with (potential) participants prior to, and following, the meeting particularly in terms of last minute information,
such as rescheduling of the meeting or of special sessions.

to set up special warning messages ("Please do not send messages.
Meeting closed", etc)

to disseminate key resolutions and declarations to those who might
usefully have been there, the media, etc.

to locate and negotiate with proceedings publishers

to inform of existence of the proceedings.

2.Conference participants: These include individuals, groups, organizations or agencies and their representatives, national ministries, the
media, etc. They could use it :

to locate meetings/organizations/events of interest

to request meeting organizers for information

to register for a meeting

to arrange travel and hotel accommodation for a meeting

to schedule travel between meetings over a period of time in a particular
region

to contact co-participants to coordinate travel or schedule participation
on a panel and sort out details about papers, facilities, etc.

to indicate interest in the results of the meeting even if participation
is not possible

to be directed to another computer service where further information
can be found, possibly on an SDI-subscriber basis.

to announce their facilities to prospective customers and receive messages
from them

to negotiate with prospective customers and make detailed arrangements

to contact possible participants to encourage them to come to the meeting
(using the facilities in question).

A network ofwhat might be called "interface agents" could make
use of it as a commercial service.

to receive messages for the computer system in conventional form (letters,
forms, telex, telephone) and process them into the computer.

to convert computer-based messages into a suitable conventional form
and disseminate them locally to those without direct access to the computer.

to convert external data files into compatible format with the computer
system or to act as an interface between two or more unintegrated computer-based
systems

to conduct searches on request, possibly on an SOI subscriber basis

to arrange for messages entered in one language to be translated into
other appropriate languages before being conveyed on to their destinations.

4a Pre-conference information
(external /professional/commercial services): These include conference information
services, organisation directory publishers and the media. They could make
use of it:

to question organizations likely to be holding meetings (e.g. the next
in a series)

to extract and amend meeting announcements (particularly by "less
capable inputters"), including control of indexing,

to maintain appropriately searchable files and indexes in appropriate
languages

to permit production of hardcopy directories as required

to ensure appropriate interaction between different conference information
services with special interests and expertise.

The media could use it to negotiate and arrange press coverage, possibly
by ensuring releases to a network of bodies with their own dissemination possibilities.
Large (inter) governmental agencies could use it to maintain their own internal
meeting calendars (some of the information being for restricted circulation
only), and for informing the relevant government agencies of any rescheduling.
(Use of the same environment by several intergovernmental agencies with
overlapping membership would offer the added advantage that the scheduling
of conflicting meetings would be immediately apparent). 4 b.

4b Post-conference information (external/professional/commercial services)
: These include proceedings information and acquisition services, direct purchasers,
proceedings publishers, standard numbering agencies (ISBN, ISSN), and researchers.
They could make use of it :

to locate publishers of proceedings and register orders

to extract, reprocess and disseminate, in an appropriate form through
other systems (possibly on an SDI subscribers basis), information concerning
the proceedings.

to announce publication of the proceedings and locate purchasers

to ensure allocation of appropriate ISBN/ISSN numbers.

Researchers, including market analysts, could use it to track meetings and
their constituencies

5.Organization creation: In addition to the above uses directly
linked to conferences, the facility could also be used by organizations
in process of creation :

to locate and contact individuals, groups and institutions wishing
to form a proposed organization (possibly prior to or following a conference
on particular topic)

to locate and contact sponsoring bodies and fund sources (which nay
wish to support the organization or its programmes (possibly including the
convening of meeting-type events)

to announce the formation of an organization (possibly on an SDI-subscriber
basis) and to exchange message with individuals or institutions wishing
to join or be placed on mailing lists.

Once created the organization may prefer not to remain listed within the
system, or possibly only on off-line files.

Finally it is useful to distinguish between users in terms of the permanence
of their status as users :

question/answer users who are not permanently registered in any way

users (subscribers) to SDI off-line services which interact with the
system via interface agents

users (subscribers) to SDI on-line services for the months or/years
period between the announcement of the meeting and dissemination of the
proceedings

users (subscribers) to semi-permanent SDI on-line services which maintain
contact between meetings in a series or different meetings organized on
the same subject by different organizations.

Geographical and topic coverage

Just as it was argued above that it is short-sighted to place artificial
constraints in the system on the range of interactants (users) and their interactions
(uses),so it is dangerous to predefine the topics/subjects about which information
should be conveyed or the geographical regions which should be considered.
Past experience with classification systems determinedcurrent political, financial
or intellectual priorities shows that they age rapidly. Amendments constitute
traumatic discontinuities (if only at the procedural and computer levels)
which, aside from doing violence to the original conception, take time and
provoke unnecessary discord. Recent experience with topics such as "development"
and "environment" demonstrate that in practice they require descriptors
extending into many unlikely areas {e.g. religion, linguistics, philosophy,
etc). A system which only permits treatment of science and technology information
would only highlight the need for systems on excluded topics, with all the
problems of overlap, compatability, duplicate inputs, and competition for
resources

In addition, for the user, the obligation to ensure that his topic is "recognized"
by the system as being "acceptable" science or technology is very
discouraging particularly in the case of new disciplines which the classification
authorities have not yet encountered. (The telephone system is a success because
it can be used by a scientistor apoet to exchange scientific information
with colleagues, to reserve hotel accommodation for a meeting, to lobby colleagues
to depose the president of the sponsoring academy or to arrange for flowers
to be given to the wife of the Minister of Science at the opening reception.
The alternative would be to have a series of parallel telephone systems for
different subject matters and a tribunal to decide which should be used in
borderline cases). Similar arguments can be put forward for non-limitation
of geographical coverage.

Having made these points, clearly current priorities
and budgetary
constraints must be used to open up those features of the system
for which there is an immediate demand.
This should however be done
without designing artificial constraints into it. There must be an
appropriate balance between the desire of users to communicate via
new terms (according to the fashion of the month or year) and the
need to embed and interrelate such terms and synonyms in some
common treasaurus to facilitate searches.
But in a real-time
system, the flexibility and responsiveness required by the former
should not be sacrificed to the latter.

Classes of message and information

In the light of the previous section it is now
possible to outline
the classes of message and information within which conference information may be usefully embedded.

To simplify the presentation, this has been done on two tables which could
in fact have been combined. In Table 2, the focus is on organizations, individuals,
meetings/events, facilities/services and fund sources. As has been noted
above, information on each can be usefully stored, whether: on-line (on a
temporary or semi-permanent basis) or off-line (on a temporary or semi-permanent
basis). The cost of inputting and storage can be met, case by case, in whole
or in part, by the source (e.g. the organization, individual, or facility
so described), by an institution interested in maintaing and processing such
files as a service, or by some third party desiring access to such a service.
When the source makes the information available, it could impose access codes.
This may be considered unsatisfactory, but it does ensure that, for those
who have light of access, there is continuity between information currently
only available through different systems. (It is particularly important to
cover the case of largeintergovernmental agencies with hundreds of internal
meetings linked in a variety of ways)

Table 1. INFORMATION FILES.

.

Organizations

GA PA NA

.

: Individuals

OA PA MA

.

Meetings / Events

OA PA NA

.

:Facilities / Services

OA PA MA

.

FundSources

OA PA NA:

.

Types of Payment

.

Storage of information

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

On-Line Semi-permanent

.

.

.

.

.

.

5P

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

PP

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

TP

.

Temporary

.

.

.

.

.

.

SP

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

PP

.

Off-line (*)

.

.

.

.

.

.

TP

.

Semi-permanent

.

.

.

.

.

.

SP

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

PP

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

TP

.

Temporary (or on separate system; or access via an 'interface agent')

.

.

.

.

.

.

SP

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

PP

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

TP

.

Classification place Topic Data

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Restrictions on access to information.

Payment (in part) for input/storage.

OA: Open access
PA: Passcode access only
NA: Access by named persons/institutions only.

. In Table 3, the focus is on the kinds of messages which those listed in
the information files may wish to exchange. "Message" here
includes the retriaval or receipt of information
in one of the files mentioned in Table 2. This is because messages may be
retained in the system for some time and therefore may not be usefully distinguished
from information files. This is especially the case with semi-permanent messages
(e.g. from a facility/service advertising itself), but less so with temporary
or "one-time" messages. (At the computer level, the distinction,
if any, between message and information may be made entirely differently from
that used here for explanatory purposes). Messages may be conveived as occurring
in two modes :

(a) Messages mode

sender specifies a named receiver

sender specifies a group of receivers (by an interest, profils)

(b) Retrieval mode

receiver specifies named sender

receiver specifies group of senders (by an interest profils)

However in the case of the temporary, or semi-permanent messages, either
(a) a receiver profile is entered or (b) the messages remain ' dormant' on
the file until a search is initiated by the receiver which is fulfilled
by a sender profile. In each case this triggers the despatch of the message.
Provision can also be made for a potential receiver to specify :

named senders from which no message is wanted

types of sender (defined by profile) from which no message is
wanted.

This is important to cut down unwanted communications. (The other method
is of course to offer the sender the opportunity to credit the receiver's
account if the message is accepted: why should users refuse a $ 100 credit
for receiving a "crank. " message about the end of the world ?)

The cost of a message can be met, case by case, in whole or in part, by

(a) the sender

paying the messaging cost

making a supplementary payment to the receiver for receiving the message
(e.g. in the case of unsolicited advertising messages)

(b) the: receiver

paying the messaging cost

making a supplementary payment to the sender to cover the value of
the information (a.g. for answering a questionnaire)

(c) a third party

paying the sender to send

paying the receiver to receive.

Note that further flexibility in required to cover the case where the initial
costs of inputting the information are not borne by those associated with
the information but by a third party which thus becames a surrogate sender
to be compensated for this service. This is, for example, the situation for
those processing meeting announcement information.

Access control policy

1. Output control: As noted earlier the system is conceived as a
means of benefitting as many users as require access to information stored
therein. Such users are a guarantee of its economic viability.

The first problem is the method of recognizing a user to handle the debiting
or crediting (if he has a favourable profile) of his account for messages
received. This has now been satisfactorily solved in many on-line systems,
together with that of supplying special passcodes where a particular user
has right of access to special classes of information.

The related problem of debiting or crediting the supplier of the information
is more complex because, in contrast to the majority of on-line systems, there
are in this case many possible suppliers rather than a single one. (This appears
to resemble the accounting aspects of the problem encountered in computerized
bond trading).

There is a special output control problem in the case of users wishing to
extract portions of the information files for reprocessing into other forms
(e.g. the production of a calendar of future meetings). Clearly special attention
must be given to the compensation of those who built up the information.
Attention must also be given to the question of copyright or else any user
could "strip" the data base. This is discussed in a later section.

2. Input control: This question is complicated by the need
to ensure the quality and validity of information, to minimize misrepresentation,
to minimize unwanted communication, and to ensure that input rules are respected
in those cases where computer control is not possible (e.g. if the user inserts
a description in the wrong language, or puts the right language description
in the wrong field)

Most of the problems can be solved by limiting possible damage as follows
.

a. Level 1: Primary user can :

insert or modify his own profile, or that on any other information
file (e.g. organization, meeting/event? facility/ service) for
which he has access authority or is named as contact. This also applies
to any negative profile he may want to set up for unman tod contacts (In
the case of large agencies with many users of different authority, some
users may have positive and negative profiles imposed on them to present
them from having any communication outside their jurisdiction.) (Respect
of formatting rules can be ensured at input.) Control: All profile
modifications should however be computer scanned to pick out improbableextremes
(e.g. a meeting scheduled for the year 2010).
Profiles should also carry a code to indicate on whose authority they
were prepared. Where appropriate, markers could be inserted to show that
there is an alternative view available on the validity of the profile.
This should ensure that misrepresentation is minimized. Wherever possible
however the policy should be to allow misrepresentation to flag itself
by its content rather than require that it be removed from the system.

initiate any searches consistent with his access code.

Control: Such searches and any rssultant messages would not be executed
unless his account was in order.

send or store messages.

Control: Such messages should include a valid identifier of their
source. A suitable system of cost barriers and negative profiles must
be in operation to reduce unwanted communication.

b. Level 2: Secondary users are those who have access to primary
users, either in a particular locality or in a particular sector (e.g. a conference
centre, a tourist office, etc). They may therefore wish to input information
profiles on meeting/events, organizations, or facilities. Input at this level
may be done by any primary (Level 1 ) user.

Control: Such additions and amendments to the information files should
be coded as "advisory". In this way they are in the system
as quickly as possible but have to be confirmed at a higher level or by
the primary user (if he already participates in the system). Any information
of this type would be automatically drawn to the attention of a higher
level user.

c. Leve1 3: Secondary users on a regular basis may
acquire status as Level 3 users. At this level users are concerned with the
quality and accuracy of information on file (e.g. meeting/event dates, addresses,
etc). They compare "advisory" inputs from various sources and other
information from those who should know (e.g. the director of the organization
responsible for a meeting). They may query those responsible (particularly
if they are already active participants in the system) to clarify any ambiguity. On this basis they modify the information file, including appropriate
codes indicating the authority/date of the best source and a code identifying
themselves. Where ambiguity persists, two or more versions may be maintained
on file (e.g. dates of a meeting).

d. Level 4: Users at this level are primarily concerned with problems
of

language

classification and terminology

standardization

in the light of the evolving pattern of usage. They may intervene to modify
any tables (e.g. accepted terms or synonyms) maintained within the system
to facilitate usage.

e. Level 5: Users at this level are concerned with the operation
of the system from a computer perspective. They do not intervene to modify
data but some of the maintenance work they do on the system may have that
effect.

f. Level 6: Users at this level are concerned with
development of the computer software facilities to ensure progressive improvement
of user access and interaction.

g. Level 7: Users at this level intervene to control the allocation
of users to different levels.

Relationships between input/ output centres

Some users (identified as Level 2 and 3 above) have, and will have, the collection
and dissemination of particular kinds of information as a programme objective.
In other words such users do not just make use of the system to inform or
be informed. They allocate resources to improving the pool of information
and ensuring that it is made as widely available as the economic constraints
permit. A good example is provided by those concerned with information on
future conferences.

At the present time such bodies independently collect, process, index and
print overlapping portions of the same pool of information. This is then distributed,
freely or at a price, to a constituency within which these bodies compete,
to some extent, for greater distribution of their respective products. Some
of these bodies consider that their programme should generate revenue,
whether or not the bodies themselves are non-profit-making. In the proposed
environment, the relationship between these bodies becomes much more intimate.
Instead of obtaining and checking each others printed products at regular
intervals, in order to update their own files, each would contribute to a
common pool (It is of course possible to envisage a situation in which each
maintained separate files and users would choose between them.). Clearly this
process would have to be established most carefully to avoid the possibility
of one or more such bodies obtaining any unfair advantage.

Fortunately in a computer environment a multitude of bookkeeping operations
can be automated. One possibility is therefore that each date element in
an information file, on meetings for example, would bear a code identifying
the body which had inserted it. Now a principal characteristic of such information
is the changes made to it as the date/location of the meeting is finally fixed.
For example, different portions of the meeting entry might end up being contributed
by 3 bodies

1 Date Body A

2 Place Body B

3 Organization Body E

4 Theme Body A

5 Organizer Body C

So at this stage, if any of four bodias were to usethat information to
produce independent meeting directories, then some corresponding accounting
units mould have to transferred in a suitable bookkeeping system for the following
:

.

Royalty payment by :

.

.

.

A

.

B

.

C

.

D

.

E

.

Royalty

payment to

.

A

.

D

.

1,4

.

1,4

.

1,4

.

-

.

to: B

.

2

.

0

.

2

.

2

.

-

.

C

.

5

.

5

.

0

.

5

.

-

.

0

.

-

.

-

.

-

.

D

.

-

.

E

.

3

.

3

.

3

.

3

.

0

.

In the above example, Body D contributed nothing to establishing the entry
so that its account would be debited in favour of all the others. On the
other hand, Body E makes' no use of that entry for its own purposes. In fact
Body E might have been a primary user (Level 1).

Clearly there are many possibilities for handling this kind of system to
compensate each according to his contribution if in fact such compensation
is required. Many primary users might be quite satisfied to be credited in
a manner which reduces royalty payments which they have to make for extracting
information. The relationship between users at Level 2 or 3 is more delicate.

The question would quickly arise as to how to prevent the appearance of abuse
under such situations as :

replacement of a valid date by the same date or a less valid date in
order to obtain "copyright" advantage

sincere replacement of the valid place by an invalid place as a result
of erroneous information from a misinformed source (possibly even with responsibility
for the meeting)

altering valid text information to bring it into some standard and
presentable format without contributing any new information (Namely editorial
and translation work ; this could also apply to any indexing)

taking advantage of work rythms, postal delays, etc. to insert or change
information when another body could only do it a day later.

Each would at some time have the advantage in the last case. The first can
bo reduced by maintaining a record, periodically listed, of who "bumped"
whose data clement by what, possibly with an agreed (if not automatic, in
the case of a date, for example) penalty in units of account. The second
is more difficult since it is a question of interpretation. Possibly a source
code could be used as a guide (e.g. 1 newspaper, 5 = own periodical, 9 =
personal letter). In the case of conflicting items with the same authority
code, both could be kept. The third could be treated as on independent
operation (and subcontracted) so that such changes did not alter the royalty
question.

An even more delicate question would be whether a new well-funded body could
regularly (or once only) "drain off" major portions of the file
for reproduction for its own market. Possibly the royalty payment system
could be weighted in terms of the number of elements taken in any one period
by such "wild-cat" users. On the other hand care must be taken
not to build up an information cartel.

Organization and control

The question of the ownership and control of the system as a whole can be
left in abeyance. In this section the focus is placed on the ownership and
control of a particular portion of the information files of special interest
to a particular group of bodies. There should be no difficulty in "nesting"
a special processing concern into a large data processing framework. The
bondaries would be defined by the allocation of access codes but this would
not affect the organization of the software.

The exampleused here is the conference information files. Given that the
day-to-day accounting operations can be settled along the lines suggested
in the previous section, the question is how major issues between the key
users can be decided. Basic questions might be "who owns the data"
? "How should votes be apportioned ?" It would seem that the conference
information subgroup could organize itself along the lines of a cooperative.
Votes could be apportioned on the basis of some formula which would take into
account, for each interested body:

number of data elements for which it was responsible at any one time,
namely its specific contribution to the information pool. (Some distinction
could possibly be made between data elements, linked to their accounting
value, s.g. date s 2 units, place = 1 unit, organization 4 units, etc.)

number of data clement Originally contributed to the pool
when it was set up.

number of data elements it used or extracted for hardcopy distribution
(i.e. bulk extraction)

number of data elements it retrieved (i.e. single retrievels)

number of amendments made to existing data elements (i.e. data quality
improvement, translation of text elements).

The formula could be structured so that initially advantage is given to those
bodies who set up the data pool. But at any subsequent time, votes would
be based on some weighted average of the above values (calculated by computer,
fortunately) to take into account fluctuations over a period of months. In
this way, an exceptional contribution by one body at a particular time would
only significantly affect its voting rights if such performance was maintained
for a time bearing some relation to the ongoing contributions of this "founder-members".

If, for example, a founder-member Ceased contributing to the pool, gradually
its voting power would drop. However it might wish to retain copyright on
old data elements if these become the abject of retrospective searches and
directories. It would be appropriate to have special committees of :

single-retrieval users

bulk-retrieval users/directors producers

contributors (e.g. Level 2 and 3)

editors and indexers.

In addition committees

for settling accounts

for "abuse appeals"

for relations with other parts of the system

would be appropriate. None of these committees need meet face-toface,
if the computer conferencing aspect is developed, since most of their work
involves consideration of documented cases and exchanges of messages.

Nature of pilot project

It seems fairly clear, in the light of similar data processing exercises,
that such a system is feasible at least from the point of view of software
and hardware. The more important issue is whether it is worth doing at this
time, and whether doing it would not create more problems for the founder-members
than they would care to handle. This raises the question as to whether a
pilot project could clarify whether the project was feasible for given
the limited scope of any such experiment
it might operate below the critical number
of users necessary to make it viable,
both economically and in terms of information flow (An hotel reservation system
cannot be satisfactorily proven with three users ). The other danger is that
such a pilot project might be too simple in conception, so that although the
participants could engage in some "data swopping", the significance
of the participation of other categories of users, and the facilities that
they require, would not be recognized. It is too easy to meet immediate priorities,
ignoring future requirements, and thus building obsolescence and irrelevance
into the system.

From the above it can be concluded that it is not
necessary to
prove the technical feasibility. The
administrative/accounting/
working/control relationships can perhaps be best sorted out in
discussion. Insights emerging from such
discussions should be
reflected in a detailed specification of the software required if not already available.

Some of the problems can be brought out in simulations
of the operation of such a system as a special exercise on an existing
computer conferencing system since such software already has most of the features required, including the possibility of relatively
sophisticated messaging, editing, retrieval, questionnaire dissemination, etc.

Perhaps the key question is how such a project would affect the operations
and finances of the founder-members. Clearly experimenting with such a system,
in parallel with existing operations, with each data element costing considerably
more than normal, could be very discouraging. On the other hand many of
the potential foundermembers are already using, or are about
to use, in-house computer equipment. The question is then
whether the pilot project could have "fail-safe" elements built
into it. In other words, even if they decided (after the experiment) not
to collaborate, such bodies could then anyway build on their experience and
software and proceed to compete in a more sophisticated manner,

Some cost considerations

It is not yet clear how costs would work in a EURONET, environment. A summary
of some cost elements is given (as Appendix 1) for the USA.

These include (per participant) :

rental of terminal equipment: $ 75-150 per month

communication with data network: telephone rates

use of data network: $ 3.50 12.00 per hour

computer use: $ 4.00 per hour

computer storage: $ 0.45 per 1000 characters

administrative overheads: $ 25.00 per month.

An additional charge may be made for rental of the computer conferencing
software, (e.g. $ 5.00 per hour).

In an analysis of computer conferencing among geoscientists (Royalty payment
by :), in 575 hours of operation, involving 5,459 messages, communicated in
a total of 4,596 sessions (at a terminal), the total cost was $ 9,474 namely
$ 1,74 per message or $ 16.45 per hour. These costs exclude
terminal rental, telephone charges, and storage costs. Indeed depending
on how the system is organized different cost elements may be present or
absent, (see Appendix 1) Another source (see Appendix 1) gives the cost
of operating a USA-wide system at

$ 3.00 per hour per person with 300 participants $ 5.00 per hour per person
with 1000 participants.

As stated in an early section, it is not however necessary for the system
to be operating 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Whilst a data swopping system
could well be cheaper (e.g. using a telex link), it is not clear that this
would be significantly better than the postal service or of any special advantage
to the potential founder-members.

Conclusion and Next Steps

It would appear from the above that a conference information system could
be usefully explored further, provided that steps are taken to ensure its
appropriate relationship to a larger framework. This seems to be vital as
a means of guaranteeing the minimum threshold of participants and interactions
necessary to the survival of the initiative as an ongoing enterprise. (It
is essential to beware of the constant danger illustrated by thinking "horse-less
carriages" and "wire-less", instead of transportation and communication).
It is for this reason that attention has been drawn to the implications
of computer conferencing as part of the process of electronic information
exchange. In this connection it is useful to bear in mind the current operational
trials of such a system amongst a variety of resoarch communities whose
members are dispersed around the USA. These trials are being funded by
the Division of Science Information (Access Improvement Program) of the U3
National Science Foundation (see Appendix 2). A conference information
system bears a strong resemblance to the NSF concept of a "small research
community" with its various problems of information storage, retrieval
exchange, evaluation, and amendment, as well as the editing of a product for
distribution in hardcopy form. Such a system appears however to be only viable
within a larger framework. The degree of useful relationship to that framework
remains to be explored. The next steps that could be undertaken are:

1. A survey of potential participants, both in terms
of immediate
interest as well as expected interest in 3 to 5 years time.
Such a survey should also determine the nature of any data
processing such participants are undertaking or need to undertake;
and the kind of equipment or service they use or expect to use.
It may be that some of the free-standing in-house smaller
computers could be linked into a data network if appropriate
modem's could be provided.

2. An inquiry to determine whether any of the planned
host computers
for EURONET would be interested in handling the information/
message files described here. It is
important to determine what
constraints there are.

3. Establish contact with the NSF Division of Science
Information
to determine whether it could clarify some of the problems likely
to arise.

4. A meeting of specialists on computer conferencing
could be held prior to and/or following a more detailed specification of the
kind of software environment that is required.
As in all domains,
there are a number of schools of thought.
It would be important
to ensure that each was appropriately represented.

5. Determine exactly what software is available, or
becoming available, which could facilitate this process.
The previous step
should help in this respect. It may
well be that with minimal
modification some existing software could be adapted to the
proposed application on an appropriate EURONET host computer.

6. Clarify the possible role of "interface
agents", particularly
in any transition phase, as a means of giving indirect access
to those who could otherwise not have it.
Such agents may also
be important if software or hardware constraints limit the
number of participants having direct access.

7. Attention should be given to the possible
implications of computer conferencing in terms of the different European legislations (see Appendix 3)

8. A meeting of potential founder members should be
held to determine
what formula could be used, if any, to govern the copyright/
royalty problems essential to the economic justification of their
participation. A study could be made,
before or in the light of
such a meeting, to review and/or test a range of formulas (possibly by simulation of such a system over a number of years).

9. Videotape presentations of computer conferencing
are available
and could be used to convey an
understanding of what can be
achieved in that environment.
Presentations of American origin
might well be adapted to take into account linguistic and other
problems likely to be encountered in Europe.

References

Center for
Research on Learning and Teaching (University of Michigan,):

Group Viewing of Interactive Computer Output: a
description of
techniques and devices. 1973.

David W Conrath
and James H Blair. The computer as an interpersonal
communication device; a study of augmentation technology and its apparent impact on organizational communication. In ; Proceedings of the
2nd International Conference on Computer Communications (Stockholm,
August 1974).

The cost and revenues of computerized conferencing. In: Proceedings
of the international Conference on Computers and Commuications, Toronto, 1976.
Washington, International Council for Computer Communication, 1976.

Jacques Vallee and T Wilson. Computer-based Communication in Support
of Scientific and Technical Work (Final report to NASA on network
experiments with the PLANET system). Menlo Park, Institute for the Future.
' (Working paper WP-24) 1976.